do you think the world would be abetter place if everyone had the same salary and same cost of living//?

Answer 1

That's a basic fallacy of those who complain about low wages in foreign "sweatshops". It lacks understanding of economics. Each economy has its levels which develop naturally. You can't compare everything in US dollars or whatever. Look not only at wages in that country but at prices. Do they end up with enough for their needs. The answer is yes.

Answer 2

If everyone had the same salary and cost of living no matter what, what would be the point of working hard to achieve something? If you were just going to end up the same as everyone else why work hard? That whole "keeping up with the Joneses" mentality, while consumer driven outlines what our society is based on. One works hard because they want to achieve something that is not just "ok". That mentality is what makes new inventions possible, it keeps us striving to do and be better. If that were taken away by forcing everything to be the same I cannot honestly say that I think the world would be a better place.

Answer 3

It does not work. Same salary and cost of living will be ok. But what about the no. of children, age group, old people to support or not, etc., etc., same in all houses. Even in nature's creation there is so much of variation.
But yours is nice thinking and you have a large heart.
Ramachandran V.

Answer 4

we would nonetheless be driving in wood buggies if capitalism hadn't come alongside and given human beings an incentive to artwork troublesome and invent issues so as that they could get patents. yet i could like it if there replaced into some baseline gross sales lots larger than minimum salary that no person replaced into allowed to fall under, inspite of no rely if or no longer that they had a job. EDIT: human beings, examine a e book. the different of communism is CAPITALISM, no longer democracy. this question taken care of on economics in basic terms, so the balloting equipment of democracy is beside the point right here. so some distance as caps on how rich human beings can get...NO. It retards progression via destroying incentive.

Answer 5

Would a world be a better place if gravity forces were half as powerful as they are? Maybe, but what good does it do to consider the impossible? You could attempt to equalize income, but how do you equalize the cost of living, especially considering the differences in family size? Also, why equal cost of living rather than equal quality of life?

Answer 6

Have you ever heard the old saying "The rich get Richer while the Poor get poorer." Well at first glance this may seem to be true but lets take a closer look at this dispairity. In the USA we have basically two classes the super rich and everyone else. What causes this distinction? Well the super rich are those who make so much money that no amount of taxation can make them poor, the rest of us are simply taxed back into poverty. America's Progressive tax insures that the more you earn and succeed the larger the percentage of earnings you have to give to everyone else. This is American equality and fairness (thanks to FDR's New Deal and LBJ's Great society wealth redistribution schemes), so no matter how much you pull yourself up by the boot straps Uncle Sam is there to knock you back down to even keel with everyone else. So if you work hard, get educated and manage to have some money left over to invest you make virtually the same as someone who doesn't work at all, WHAT'S THE POINT IN WORKING. Why not just sit back and do nothing while the other poor sap earns a living for both of you.

The problem is that these social programs(gov't handouts) are just too attractive. The more attractive they(ie. welfare, Medicaid, HUD, Section 8, food stamps, free social services, free child care, college grants for the poor, ect.) become the more people want to use them. And the more of us who use them the more everyone else's taxes must go up to pay for them, making it even less attractive to work. However, the very people paying for these programs still make enough money before taxes to make them ineligible for the programs, no matter how much they actually take home. So some people actually quit their jobs to gain access to these programs, and the people already on them don't want to lose them so they stay unemployed to keep them. Talk about a cycle of dependancy.

The problem is threefold. First the benefits are just too high, second before tax dollars determine qualification, and third progressive taxes punish acheivement

These "Benefits" are meant for basic subsistance, not a means of a comfortable standard of living. Why would I look for a job when my food and medicine are paid for my rent is reduced and I even get free baby sitting, while still getting enough to party a couple of times a week, buy a decent car and have a reasonable wardrobe. Some of these people live better than I do. Me and my wife make $45,00 dollars a year, own two used cars and live in a slum. We're middle class and live paycheck to paycheck. After rent is paid, food is bought, taxes garnished, doctors and medicine bills paid, we take home $700 a month for extras like insurance and car payments. Hmm, thats about the same as a two person family on welfare, with food stamps, reduced rent, free medical and drugs has left over, tell me who the stupid ones are.

Me and my wife don't qualify for any of these benefits, hell I don't even qualify for unemployment when I go to Nursing school this fall because we make to much. We live the same as a poor person, but we're middle class, which is socialist speak for undeserving of what money already have let alone help from the vast sums of money we've already pumped into the government. Qualifications should be based on what we actually take home instead of these Imaginary "before tax dollars".

Thirdly a flatter tax rate would not punish people for being middle class or rich for that matter, people might actually want to work if they made more by doing so. Have yo ever noticed that even in a deep recession where unemployment sits at about 15% the papers and shop windows are still loaded with "Help Wanted" ads. Thats because people don't want to work not because they can't find work. If they get a job they lose their medical, their perscriptions, their rent goes up, they have to pay for food and child care out of their own pocket. Why the hell would they want to work themselves into the poor house?

Answer 7

That is so not even a reasonable assumption, since not everyone is equally intelligent, motivated, dedicated, etc etc, ~ people should be compensated according to their ability and effort. I don't want to see lazy Joe down the street earning the same as someone who is bustin butt every day. Wow, would that be annoying! No way that would work for me.

Answer 8

maybe....i mean it would make everything easier financially, but it is almost impossible to do that, considering there will always be someone that wastes teh money and needs more, or someone that raises the prices of their products, which will ruin the system. however, if it was possible, it could make things easier because no one would be predjiduce against those poorer, etc. however, we already have proof that communism doesnt work.

Answer 9

The reason Communism only work in theory is because people are too corrupt to run it correctly. That applies to every country. That is why Communism has never and will never work. Power corrupts the government, and people don't work if they don't have a reason to.

Answer 10

Everyone would complain that some jobs are harder than others, so everyone would want the easiest job posible. Then there would be a big war or everyone would become even more lazy.